Warrantless Search and Seizure Memoranda

Hey, Professor Farris, according to the Shelby County Sheriff’s Department any search or seizure without a warrant must be justified and supported by clear, convincing and articulable facts. Officers must be prepared to justify any and all warrantless searches. A search without a warrant has consistently been found by the courts to be preemptively unreasonable, and therefore invalid, absent specific and articulable facts. If an experienced officer has the reasonable suspicions can articulate to a set of facts and circumstances that criminal activity may be afoot and make rational inferences. (Booker, 2015) The officer must have probable cause under any circumstances that would lead a reasonable man to believe that it is more likely than not a certain individual has committed or is committing an absolute crime. Officers may search vehicles when there is probable cause to believe that contraband or evidence of a crime is present in the vehicle. The vehicles need only to show inherent mobility rather than actual mobility. The search can be made immediately or delayed as long as probable cause existed even if the vehicle has been impounded and immobilized. An officer may search in any place that the object of the search may reasonably be found. This includes locked containers. Probable cause must be item specific. Probable cause for arrest is not probable cause for a search. Probable cause for a warrantless vehicle search has to be just as sufficient as probable cause to support

Police officers use search and seizure as a tool to ensure their safety, gather evidence, and arrest suspects. In police training, a search is defined as an examination of a hidden place, i.e. a person or their property, whose purpose is to find contraband (DOCJT, 2014, p. 10). A seizure is defined as the capture or arrest of a person or the confiscation of property (DOCJT, 2014, p. 10). Depending on the individual situation, a warrant may or may not be required to conduct searches and seizures. The exclusionary rule, which states that illegally seized evidence is inadmissible in court, has guided the definition of search and seizure, specifically as it pertains

The simplest and most common type of warrantless searches are searches based upon consent. [1] No warrant or probable cause is required to perform a search if a person with the proper authority consents to a search. [2] A consent search requires the person being searched to freely and voluntarily waive their Fourth Amendment rights, granting the officer permission to perform the

When it comes to Search and Seizure, allot of people think that law enforcement should not be allowed to search or seize property. I have heard many arguments against this subject, people stating that law enforcement officers go too far or have no right to search someone’s property such as their vehicle. Probable cause is more than a reasonable suspicion it requires that a combination of facts makes it more likely than not that items sought are where police believe them to be. In addition to establishing probable cause for a search, a warrant must contain the reasons for obtaining it, the names of people presenting the affidavits, what is specifically being sought and the signature of the judge issuing it.

In the court case SMYTH v. LUBBERS, 398 F.Supp 777 (1975) the plaintiff’s rooms were searched without a warrant or probable cause by campus police officers that were acting as officials of the state. They seized a substance that was alleged to be marijuana and proceeded to arrest the plaintiffs. The court held that the search and seizure was illegal because, that two of the campus police officers were acting as representatives of the county police at the time, and there are rules in the student handbook at that college in place to protect students from illegal search and seizure, and those rule were not followed. Just like in Jones v. Rohward University, Deary Jones was subjected to an illegal search and seizure. This search and seizure is

In Benters a reliable source told Detective J. Hastings there was an indoor marijuana growing operation at 527 Currin Road in Henderson, North Carolina, and Glenn Benters owned the property but was not living there. Benters at 662, 766 S.E.2d at 596 (2014). Hastings obtained a subpoena to look at the utility use for the property and discovered that it was indicative of a marijuana growing operation. Id. Hastings and Officer Joseph Ferguson traveled to Benters’ property and saw tools used for marijuana growing outside the premises. Id. After that observation, they conducted a knock and talk on the back door. Id. at 662, 766 S.E.2d at 596-597 (2014). After no answer, Ferguson walked to a building where music was playing and smelled

A police officer is dispatched to a call in his jurisdiction for a noise complaint. The police officer arrives hearing very loud music coming from the residence which violates a noise ordinance. The police officer knocks on the front door with no answer so he proceeds to the back door to knock when he observes what appears to be marijuana plants based on his training and experience. The police officer can seize the marijuana plants based on the Plain View Doctrine. “In Harris v. United States (1968), the Supreme Court ruled that anything a police officer sees in plain view, when the officer has a right to be where he or she is, is not the product of a search and is therefore admissible as evidence.” [1] The

Case Facts: Roy Caballes was stopped for speeding by an Illinois state trooper Daniel Gillette. During the traffic stop another state trooper Craig Graham of the Illinois State Police Drug Interdiction Team, overheard the stop on the radio and showed up to the scene with a narcotics detection dog. While the first trooper was writing Roy Caballes a warning ticket for speeding the second trooper walked around Roy’s car with the narcotics detection dog. The dog alerted that it had detected narcotics at the rear end of the car which subsequently led to the state troopers searching the trunk of the car. Upon searching the trunk of the car the state troopers found a large quantity of marijuana which consequently led to the arrest of Roy Caballes. The entire incident lasted no longer than 10 minutes. Roy Caballes was convicted of a narcotics offence and was sentenced to 12 years in prison and ordered to pay a $256,136 fine.

According to the probable cause statement filed on September 26, 2016, by Chesapeake Police Officer Allison Ostman, the following occurred in the city of Chesapeake: “On September 18, 2016, at approximately 03:30, I made contact with a suspicious occupied vehicle at the intersection of Drum Creek Road and Taylor Road that was occupied by several juveniles to include a Mr. Darren DelPapa. Due to an odor of marijuana in the vehicle, I performed a search of the vehicle for illegal narcotics. During my search, I located a plastic bag containing (1) 30 mg tablet of codeine underneath Mr. DelPapa’s seat. I mirandized him at approximately 0348 hours, to which Mr. DelPapa stated the pill belonged to him.”

Facts: The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and states that an officer to have both probable cause and a search warrant in order to search a person or their property. There are several exceptions to this requirement. One exception to this is when an officer makes an arrest; the officer can search an arrestee and the area within his immediate control without first obtaining a search warrant. This case brings forth the extent of an officer’s power in searching an arrestee’s vehicle after he has been arrested and placed in the back of a patrol car. On August 25, 1999, the police responded to an anonymous tip of drug activity at a particular residence. When they arrived on scene, Rodney Gant answered the door

The police found a bag of marijuana, a grinder, and a joint. Both Dedwin Shelling and Chester George were detained and read their Miranda rights. Mr. George was charged with possession of marijuana 2nd offense, as well as possession of drug paraphernalia.

While patrolling the city we passed by a park and noticed a parked vehicle in the parking lot. The officer approached the man in the vehicle and asked for identification and if he was on probation or parole. The man responded that yes he was on parole. The officer then proceeded to have the man sit on the curb and request further units. When units arrived, the officer searched the man's vehicle to see if there were any drugs in the car. Had the officer found any drug paraphernalia, it would not constitute being the fruit of the poisoned tree since according to the fourth waiver, individuals on probation and parole have waived their right against unwarranted searches and seizures and any evidence if found was acquired legally.

SUMMARY OF THE FACTS: An anonymous letter was sent to the Police Department of Bloomingdale. The letter included specific details involving a husband and wife. The letter stated that they were going to traffic drugs from Florida to Illinois. The police officer followed up on the tip and the defendants validated the allegations that were made. The police obtained a search warrant and found drugs, weapons and other contraband in the defendants’ home and automobile.

Facts: In Lexington, Kentucky, police officers followed a suspected drug dealer to an apartment building where he went. When they arrived outside of the door to the apartment where the suspect was they reportedly could smell marajuana. The police then knocked and shouted they they were there and in return they could hear what sounded like people destroying the evidence and running around. The police then knocked down the door and saw the respondent as well as drugs laying out without having to look anywhere. later the police found more drugs and paraphernalia doing a more in-depth search. “The Circuit Court denied respondent’s motion to suppress the evidence, holding that exigent

On May 31, 1979, Drug Enforcement Agency officers noticed Charles Carney approach a youth who followed Carney into a motor home parked in a lot in downtown San Diego. The officer had previously received a tip that Carney was using the motor home to sell marijuana in exchange for sexual sex. The officers kept the motor home under surveillance while the youth and Carney were inside. When the youth exited, the officers contacted the youth and confirmed that Carney gave the youth marijuana in exchange for allowing Carney sexual contacts. The officers knocked on the door of the mobile home, identified themselves, and entered without a warrant or consent. They found marijuana, plastic bags, and a scale on the table. The officers arrested Carney for